I looked for the Warren High School demolition thread, but couldn't find it. (maybe it's being cleaned?)  Here are some pictures a co-worker took of the completed project.  We did our best to make lemonaide from lemons.  Based on these pictures, (I haven't seen this in person) I like it better than nothing.  I'm not sure I want to know what you think...

 

In the air:

 

On the ground, late last summer:

Thats so sad when compared to what the building used to look like. It was such a beautiful building. But, like you said, its better than nothing.

 

However, I think putting the new building against the street and using the old facade as the facade of the new building would have been an even better use. What is that facade being used for? Storage? I imagine there are rooms inside.

I graduated from this school...Much of the left and right wings that flanked the center shown here were built in the 50's as add-ons. But, I think they still demolished some original historic aspects as well...and tore down East Junior and other historically significant buildings... The new schools are crappy and will never hold their own like these did.

 

Yes, this is better than nothing, but this city school board is a train wreck of unaccountability that has made decisions that have cost the community dearly. Many are not pleased with the demolitions of the schools and had shown many alternatives.

 

Great photos!

Did you graduate before Warren Harding merged with WWR?  They had some seriously good football teams (1990).

Thats so sad when compared to what the building used to look like. It was such a beautiful building. But, like you said, its better than nothing.

 

However, I think putting the new building against the street and using the old facade as the facade of the new building would have been an even better use. What is that facade being used for? Storage? I imagine there are rooms inside.

 

AFAIK, they had to build the new school where they did because the old school was still being used while the new school was being built.  One of the early ideas for the facade was to dismantle it and rebuild it on the new school, but they quickly realized that this was going to cost much more than the $1 million the district had set aside for "historic respect."

 

There are rooms behind the facade.  But, by law, they can't be used.

 

EC, the school board and superintendant played a huge role in the decision to not save and use the auditorium.

 

I had to generate the contract documents for most of the school buildings that have been demolished in Warren, and the building that I'm most ashamed of working on is Garfield Elementary.

I was circa 86-87....  There was still a Warren Western Reserve.....the heated east side/west side rivalry. Coaches kept trying to get me to join the football team as tight end...But I was kind of reluctant about it like the coach was in taking the managers job of the Indians in Major League...  ""How would you like to manage the Indians?"...  "Ohhhh  I dunnoooo"  Ha!

 

I knew people from the 88 through 91 class.

I'm not sure this is "better than nothing." It looks like a Hollywood backlot. The parking lot and the blank wall in the rear look ridiculous. The back of the building should be opened up and the parking lot transformed into a park that fully integrates the new building and the old to create a unified campus.

I'd take it.  It's better than full demolition, but I would have allowed it so you could pass through.  Green up that passageway way more between the parking, like an actual walking path with narrower parking alleys.  It will look more like a monument that way then just "some thing we decided to keep around because it's beautiful."

^that's a good idea, but as it stands the back looks like a mausoleum!

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

I tend to agree..although the facade looks nice...  The overall appearance, especially to those who are used to seeing how it was, looks silly. My Grandfather was on the construction crews for the original school.

It is a monument to stupidity.

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

 

Indeed it's a mockery.  I even think facadectomies are awful.  But sending this to landfill is far from being a better alternative.  Think of it this way.  People will look at this, then at that po-mo school and go "What the hell were we thinking then"

^ Honestly, I agree... and I wish some people can forward these comments to the Warren Board of Education or "DEAD-ucation" and express these views. They are part of a big reason this has happened--And hence why 2 candidates are campaigning hard to get some of the stupidity off the school board.

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

 

Indeed it's a mockery. I even think facadectomies are awful. But sending this to landfill is far from being a better alternative. Think of it this way. People will look at this, then at that po-mo school and go "What the hell were we thinking then"

 

Which is why you would expect Warren to want it to go away.

A lot of people were not happy with the total tear down. But, I should point out again, that the end flanking additions on the school before demolition were built in the 1950's. Still they removed some original flanks from the center, anyway. What is really annoying is that the new school is pretty much cookie cutter crap. 

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

 

Indeed it's a mockery. I even think facadectomies are awful. But sending this to landfill is far from being a better alternative. Think of it this way. People will look at this, then at that po-mo school and go "What the hell were we thinking then"

 

Yes...Good point.  It could actually serve as a testament to a stupid decision. Warren has been tearing down its history for years. There is not even the original Mainstreet....and if for some reason the sports nuts thought tearing down the county court house would somehow help them build a new stadium...they'd do it. So not only would a classic court house go..but also a stadium where Ross/Joey Browner played and Paul Warfield! That is the kind of thinking that controls the school board.

Seriously, who photoshopped the old school facade into this pic??

 

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

 

Agree 100%...this is lame!

It is a monument to stupidity.

Actually, by keeping the monument to stupidity, is a self admission of stupidity...so maybe its a good thing. A "poster child example", if you will.

As someone pointed out in the other WHHS thread: when they have to replace their new high school in 50 years, they can build the new, new school behind the original facade.  Because it's made of real stone, and not bricks and concrete, it should still be in good shape. :)

 

Think of it this way. People will look at this, then at that po-mo school and go "What the hell were we thinking then"

 

 

If you look at Cincy, it seems they have realized that the old (pre WW II) high schools were much better, and more worth saving, then the post-war stuff, but still seem to be building mostly desposable schools.

 

Cincy schools, year built, and desposition:

 

SPCA, 1908, New construction/ new site (but plan to preserve the old building)

Hughes, 1910, Renovation

Withrow, 1919, Renovation (1974 addition torn down)

Western Hills, 1928, Renovation

Walnut Hills, 1931, Renovation (1959 addition torn down)

 

Woodward, 1951, Demolish & replace/ existing site

Taft, 1954, Demolish & replace/ existing site

Schroder, 1956, Demolish & replace/ new site

Aiken, 1960, Demolish & replace/ existing site

Clark, 1970, Demolish & replace/ existing site

As someone pointed out in the other WHHS thread: when they have to replace their new high school in 50 years, they can build the new, new school behind the original facade.  Because it's made of real stone, and not bricks and concrete, it should still be in good shape. :)

 

Trying not to come across as being rude, but everything you heard or wherever this info came from is pure made up fiction.  As in: 1.  What the original building is constructed of and the type of building systems employed and 2. What materials will outlast the other.  I'd be willing to explain why.

Thats so sad when compared to what the building used to look like. It was such a beautiful building. But, like you said, its better than nothing.

 

However, I think putting the new building against the street and using the old facade as the facade of the new building would have been an even better use. What is that facade being used for? Storage? I imagine there are rooms inside.

 

AFAIK, they had to build the new school where they did because the old school was still being used while the new school was being built.  One of the early ideas for the facade was to dismantle it and rebuild it on the new school, but they quickly realized that this was going to cost much more than the $1 million the district had set aside for "historic respect."

 

There are rooms behind the facade.  But, by law, they can't be used.

 

EC, the school board and superintendant played a huge role in the decision to not save and use the auditorium.

 

I had to generate the contract documents for most of the school buildings that have been demolished in Warren, and the building that I'm most ashamed of working on is Garfield Elementary.

 

Yes..... Hellweg has got to go...so does Bolino and Faulkner... They are turning this district into one that places all academics/arts, etc.. as secondary in priority to athletics, sending the message that its all the students can be. The athletic director is living his dream through the students and forcing this sports agenda/identity on the whole community, only further type-casting Warren. Nice new building for the new school...But its turning out a rotten product. While I live in Cleveland....  I still travel out to Warren for a few days a week to help a family member and I still have a vested interest in the system. Flaviani and Wilson need to get on this board. I and about 200 others have had 3 major issues with this school board in one year and all falls on deaf ears. So, while I just ranted on here... I felt it important to note some of that because considering the priorities of the board and the mindset (no accountability).... I am not surprised by this kind of decision we see to tear down so much of this beautiful old school.

 

  I guess Ohio cities are now old enough that ancient landmarks have become attractions.

As someone pointed out in the other WHHS thread: when they have to replace their new high school in 50 years, they can build the new, new school behind the original facade.  Because it's made of real stone, and not bricks and concrete, it should still be in good shape. :)

 

Trying not to come across as being rude, but everything you heard or wherever this info came from is pure made up fiction.  As in: 1.  What the original building is constructed of and the type of building systems employed and 2. What materials will outlast the other.  I'd be willing to explain why.

 

Believe me, I know the materials that are in what's left of this building - the real structure is a mixture of brick and speed tile.  I just thought it was amusing.

 

I doubt the district will let the building last that long, anyway.  They will have to replace the roof sooner than that, and I suspect that is when they will decide to demolish the rest of it.

I would rather see full demolition than this mockery.

 

Indeed it's a mockery.  I even think facadectomies are awful.  But sending this to landfill is far from being a better alternative.  Think of it this way.  People will look at this, then at that po-mo school and go "What the hell were we thinking then"

 

Yes...Good point.  It could actually serve as a testament to a stupid decision. Warren has been tearing down its history for years. There is not even the original Mainstreet....and if for some reason the sports nuts thought tearing down the county court house would somehow help them build a new stadium...they'd do it. So not only would a classic court house go..but also a stadium where Ross/Joey Browner played and Paul Warfield! That is the kind of thinking that controls the school board.

Even though Warren is much larger than Painesville, at least in this sense they can be considered sister cities--lol. I think in the 60's they shared the same city "manager"! :x

OMG. Way, way worse than a complete loss - and the fact that it backs up to a parking lot just reinforces the travesty.

^ I knew I would get responses like this, but I'm not sure I understand the logic.  To me, this is better than complete demolition because a piece of architecture was saved, and, at least theoretically, could be incorporated into a new building someday.  I think it would be much worse for this to have been completely demolished, and the columns taken to the district warehouse to gather dust while they decide what to do with them.

 

Could someone please explain?

of course it's better that this remnant was saved, but it should have been better integrated into it's surroundings, or moved to a different location completely. The stark back wall facing the parking lot makes no sense (maybe it could be used as the screen for a drive-in!). Hopefully, after enough complaints, a new plan can be devised that shows this beautiful facade in a more complimentary (and complementary!) light/setting.

Certainly an unusual approach, and better than total destruction.  Just seems so artificial and solitary.  The acres of parking behind sure don't help matters.

No, it is not better than total destruction. Integration of this entrance into a new building would be facadism at its worst. This entrance was not designed to be standing by itself, or placed into a new structure -- it has become a "folly," as the English like to call such things. As the New York Times has said, "..to save only the facade of a building is not to save its essence; it is to turn the building into a stage set, into a cute toy..."

 

In places like Warren, as in Ironton, Galion and elsewhere, it also serves as a continuing reminder of the travesty of the Ohio School Facilities Commission building program's skewed guidelines, the over-zealousness of architectural companies that spew out schools that are virtually indistinguishable from prisons while wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and the purposeful ignorance of school boards that fall victim to rampant and unfounded paranoias about older educational (or, indeed, any older) buildings.

 

Sorry - hit a nerve.

Now I understand where you're coming from regarding the old WHHS facade.  However, I still disagree.

 

I would not call building new schools with state of the art technology, comfortable rooms, and good lighting, regardless of how they look, a waste of taxpayer money.  The vast majority of buildings that have been demolished with the help of the OSFC weren't historic or architecturally significant, anyway.

No, it is not better than total destruction. Integration of this entrance into a new building would be facadism at its worst. This entrance was not designed to be standing by itself, or placed into a new structure -- it has become a "folly," as the English like to call such things. As the New York Times has said, "..to save only the facade of a building is not to save its essence; it is to turn the building into a stage set, into a cute toy..."

 

In places like Warren, as in Ironton, Galion and elsewhere, it also serves as a continuing reminder of the travesty of the Ohio School Facilities Commission building program's skewed guidelines, the over-zealousness of architectural companies that spew out schools that are virtually indistinguishable from prisons while wasting hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, and the purposeful ignorance of school boards that fall victim to rampant and unfounded paranoias about older educational (or, indeed, any older) buildings.

Sorry - hit a nerve.

what about the issue of older buildings being too costly to be retrofitted to meet the requirements imposed by the ADA? This seems to be a lot of the (alleged) reason for the "need" to completely demolish historic old schools and build new ones.

This subject bugs me a lot.  We have many local Catholic School buildings that have been continually operating in buildings that were often built before the 1920's.  The difference between them and the public schools is that the Catholic schools take care of the buildings and conduct incremental improvements.  The public schools defer maintenance for decades until it is cheaper to demolish.  For ADA you add an elevator inside and a ramp outside and retrofit some bathrooms.  It is done all the time.

This subject bugs me a lot.  We have many local Catholic School buildings that have been continually operating in buildings that were often built before the 1920's.  The difference between them and the public schools is that the Catholic schools take care of the buildings and conduct incremental improvements.  The public schools defer maintenance for decades until it is cheaper to demolish.  For ADA you add an elevator inside and a ramp outside and retrofit some bathrooms.  It is done all the time.

 

I've only been in one Catholic school, so I could be way off.  But I suspect that the technology in their buildings is sorely lacking. (in addition to environmental controls, and antiquated/inefficient mechanical equipment)  A coworker went to a Catholic elementary school, and she still jokes about the "asbestos" dust they found on their desks every morning.

 

Making a building ADA accessible isn't always as simple as you describe.  I know of an old building in a neighboring school district that was built with a few different levels, and it's not possible to provide accessibility to all of these different levels.

Now I understand where you're coming from regarding the old WHHS facade.  However, I still disagree.

 

I would not call building new schools with state of the art technology, comfortable rooms, and good lighting, regardless of how they look, a waste of taxpayer money.  The vast majority of buildings that have been demolished with the help of the OSFC weren't historic or architecturally significant, anyway.

 

Yes, they are a waste of taxpayer money. In almost every one of these situations, the estimated cost of renovation to meet modern educational standards -- including the technology, comfortable rooms and good lighting to which you refer -- was substantially below the cost of demolition and replacement. In Cleveland alone saving a handful of older buildings would have saved the district an additional $60 million. And, in almost every one of these situations, taxpayers are saddled with buildings that have dramatically shorter life expectancies than the buildings they replaced.

 

As for the quality of architecture, the loss has been a pervasive and crippling one across the state. In smaller communities, the school was typically the only piece of significant local architecture. Buildings do not derive their historic value or integrity simply because they are the product of a well-known architect. These buildings were the heart and soul of almost every Ohio community under 25,000 or so in population.